W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > September 2002

Re: TAG Comments on XHTML 2.0 and HLink

From: <Svgdeveloper@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 12:49:57 EDT
Message-ID: <18f.eca3127.2ac494b5@aol.com>
To: ann@webgeek.com, www-tag@w3.org
In a message dated 26/09/2002 17:12:07 GMT Daylight Time, ann@webgeek.com 

> That the most basic activity of hypertext, linking between documents and 
> objects [2], becomes something that the majority of HTML authors will not 
> be able to write with their eyes closed let alone without a constant 
> reference source, is the ultimate failing of the XLink effort, and a vivid 
> demonstration of why the process of ignoring, rejecting, and subversion of 
> those requirements, clearly articulated more than 3 years ago, must be 
> rectified.


My perception is that your closing paragraph is likely significantly 
exaggerated at least when applied to the majority of links to be created by 
the majority of developers.

Writing simple XLinks in SVG is pretty straightforward. If I want to link to 
an external JavaScript/ECMAScript file I can write
<svg:script xlink:href="myJavaScriptFile.js" type="text/javascript" />

Similarly to create a straightforward link to, for example, a new SVG Web 
page (cf http://www.XMML.com) I can simply write
<svg:a xlink:href="http://www.EditITWrite.com" />

Not too difficult to do with your eyes close ... I think I have probably done 
it myself a few times. :)

So, in practice, straightforward use of script and a elements would/could 
remain simple in XHTML.

If that is the "ultimate failing" of the XLink effort then perhaps your 
concern is a little out of proportion. Having said that I want to ponder some 
issues Steven Pemberton raised in his post which you quote and likely I will 
post further on those.


Andrew Watt
Received on Thursday, 26 September 2002 12:51:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:54 UTC